A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTIES OF...

Vol-2 Issue-3 2016 IJARIIE-ISSN(O)-2395-4396

2430 www.ijariie.com 2510

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE

PROPERTIES OF SCC WITH BLENDED

CEMENT

Sakshi Gupta1, Ankit Batra2

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil

Engineering, ASET, Amity University, Haryana, India

2Assistant Professor, Department of Civil

Engineering, ASET, Amity University, Haryana, India

ABSTRACT Concrete is the most important and versatile engineering material and with increase in trend towards the wider use

of concrete for a number of applications in construction, there is a growing demand of concrete with higher

compressive strength. Advancement in technology demand certain properties of the concrete related to strength and

durability to be improved to a greater extent; particularly mineral admixtures are indispensible in production of

high strength concrete (HSC) for practical applications. One of the types of concrete now-a-days being used in

construction is Self Compacting Concrete (SCC) which is a paramount advancement within concrete technology

having a major impact on concrete practices.

In this view, a review was done on various properties of SCC with blended cement . The present paper explores the

recent innovations in SCC and the reviewed literature broadly signifies and focuses on use of innovative materials

in SCC and their effect on fresh, mechanical, non-destructive, sulphate and chloride attack properties of SCC to find

out the advantages and disadvantages of using SCC in practice. The reviewed literature indicates broad variation in

behavior and performance of various properties of SCC containing different innovative materials.

Keywords: Blended cement, Compressive strength, Durability, Self Compacting Concrete, Workability

1. INTRODUCTION

Cementit ious materials made of Port land cement are the composite materials with utmost significance in the

construction industry due to their enormous applications. The increasing world population and tremendous

technological & industrial advancement leading to massive infrastructure requirement has further increased the

demand of cement. Concrete being one of the most important elements for any kind of construction work; is the only

material exclusive to the construction business and hence, it is the beneficiary o f a fair proportion of the R&D

money from industry. Concrete is a nano-structured, complex, mult i-phase, composite construction material

composes primarily of aggregate (fine and coarse), cement, water, and additives if any.

One of the types of concrete now-a-days being used in construction is Self Compacting Concrete (SCC) which is a

significant advancement within concrete technology having a major impact on concrete practices. As one of the

colossal developments in concrete technology, SCC is in the p rocess of casting without imposing additional

vibrating forces, and only gravity is necessary to completely fill the mould cavity to form a uniform dense concrete.

The concept of SCC was firstly given in 1986 by Okamura, a scholar from the University of Tokyo in which he

pointed out that the reduction of Japanese skilled workers has a negative impact on the durability of the concrete

structure, and proposed developing SCC which can avoid the impact o f construction quality. SCC is a kind of

concrete which is characterized by high workability. Soon after, Ozawa, a scholar from the University of Tokyo,



carried out the study of self-compacting concrete, and made up SCC successfully in 1988 [1-3]. Thus, SCC is widely

recognized as a high-performance concrete which introduces benefits in workab ility, durability, reductions of labor

cost and higher strength properties compared to those of normally v ibrated concrete. It involves not only high

deformability but also resistance to segregation between coarse aggregate and mortar when concrete flow through

confined zone of reinforcing bars. Filling ability, passing ability and segregation resistance are the fundamental fresh

properties for SCC. It can be used for in-situ applications as well as fo r precast production. SCC has different

proportions as compared to conventional concrete in a way that SCC has more fine aggregates as compared to

course aggregates and super plasticizer can be used to enhance the workability. To check the workability of SCC

mix various tests are performed such as slump flow, V funnel, U box, L box, and J ring. To ensure high fluid ity,

resistance to segregation and bleeding problems at some stage in transportation and placing, use of high amount of

fine materials and viscosity modify ing admixtures(VMA) have been recommended by the researchers. Cement

content is decreased to make concrete economical and environment friendly. Supplementary cementitious materials

(SCM) are used as its replacement such a fly ash, silica fume, metakaolin, iron slag, rice husk ash, ground

granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) etc. Therefore, use of these types of mineral additives in SCC will make it

possible, not only to decrease the cost of SCC but also to increase its long-term performance.

Basic recommendations to achieve self compactibility are:

(a) Limited coarse aggregate content.

(b) Limited fine aggregate content in mortar.

(c) Low water/powder ratio.

(d) High dosage of super plasticizer.

The EFNARC [4, 6] provides the need for workability which should be satisfied to fall under the category of SCC.

According to Mehta et al. [5] the three fundamental elements for supporting an environmentally-friendly concrete

technology for sustainable development are the conservation of primary materials, the enhancement of the durability

of concrete structures, and a holistic approach to the technology.

2. BLENDED CEMENT

Blended cement is a uniform blend obtained by mixing OPC with mineral admixtures or additives like fly ash, slag

or silica fumes. Blended cements are now being considered superior as compared to conventional OPC category of

cements. They are being manufactured and used at a large scale in many countries including Ind ia. Presently in India,

about 30% of the total production is blended cement. With the advanced applications there are various advantages of

blended cement which can be summarized as follows:

It reduces water demand thereby reducing the w/c ratio.

It improves workability for the same water content.

The blended cements are finer as compared to the OPC and have improved durability and reduced

permeability in concrete.

Blended cements are obtained by adding admixtures or other addit ives to OPC and the energy is being

saved to large extend during this process of production.

By using the industrial wastes and other resources, the natural minerals like lime, stone, clay, silica, etc

are conserved.

B y r e d u c i n g t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f cement; pollution is controlled as cement is an energy

intensive product. It has been estimated that 7% of total present pollution is only due to cement production

which can proportionately be reduced if more blended cement is used.

3. GGBFS (ALCCOFINE)

Alccofine is a specially processed product based on slag of high g lass content with h igh reactiv ity obtained throug h

the process of controlled granulation. The raw materials are composed primary of low calcium silicates. The

processing with other select ingredients results in controlled particle size distribution (PSD). The computed blain

value based on PSD is around 12000cm2/gm and is t ruly u ltra-fine. Due to its unique chemistry and ultra-fine

particle size, alccofine provides reduced water demand for a given workability, even up to 70% rep lacement level as



per requirement. Alccofine also consumes by product calcium hydroxide from the hydration of cement to form

additional C-S-H gel, similar to pozzolans .

4. LITERATURE REVIEW

4.1 Fresh Properties

Boukendak dji et al. (2012) examined the inclusion of granulated blast furnace slag by substitution to cement and

found it to be very beneficial for fresh self-compacting concrete. Five mixes were prepared with 0%, 10%, 15%,

20%, and 25% cement replacement by blast furnace slag and two types of super plasticizer were added. One was

polycarboxylate based super plasticizer (SP1) and another was naphthalene sulphonate based super plasticizer (SP2).

Tests were conducted for fresh properties such as flowability, passing ability and segregation resistance. The fresh

concrete compositions are shown in Table 1 [7].

Table 1: Fresh Concretes Compositions [7]

Mixture SCC1 SCC2 SCC3 SCC4 SCC5

Cement 465 420 397 374 352

Slag (%)

(kg/m3)

0 10 15 20 25

0 44 66 88 110

Coarse aggregate (3/8) (kg/m3) 280 280 280 280 280

Coarse aggregate (8/15) (kg/m3) 560 560 560 560 560

Fine aggregate (kg/m3) 867 867 867 867 867

Water (kg/m3) 186 185 185 185 185

Super Plasticizer SP1 (%)

(kg/m3)

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

7.44 7.42 7.40 7.39 7.38

SP2 (%) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

(kg/m3) 8.37 8.35 8.33 8.32 8.32

Note: SP1: polycarboxylate based super plasticizer

SP2: naphthalene sulphonate based super plasticizer.

With the experiments conducted, it was predicted that SP1 gave more workability and acceptable values of all fresh

properties as suggested by EFNARC [6] at all ages to concrete mixes than SP2. The optimum content of blast

furnace slag was found to be 15%.

Khaleel et al. (2011) studied the effect of coarse aggregate properties on self-compacting concrete. They used three

types of coarse aggregates namely crush gravel, uncrushed gravel and crush limestone. Slump flow, U-Box, V-

Funnel and L-Box tests were performed to determine workab ility of concrete mix [8]. Twelve various mixes were

prepared as shown in Table 2. Table 2: Mixes involved in the study [8]

Mix

No.

C

(kg/m3)

MK

(kg/m3)

W(kg/m3) SP (% of

cement

weight)

S(kg/m3) CA(kg/m

3) CA type CA

max.

size

CU10 500 0 170 0.85 865 885 uncrushed 10

CU20 500 0 170 0.80 865 885 uncrushed 20

C10 500 0 172 0.95 865 885 crushed 10

C20 500 0 172 0.90 865 885 crushed 20

CL10 500 0 172 1.00 865 885 limestone 10

CL20 500 0 172 0.95 865 885 limestone 20

MU10 450 0 175 1.70 865 885 uncrushed 10

MU20 450 0 175 1.65 865 885 uncrushed 20

MC10 450 0 175 1.85 865 885 crushed 10



MC20 450 0 175 1.80 865 885 crushed 20

ML10 450 0 173 1.80 865 885 limestone 10

ML20 450 0 173 1.75 865 885 limestone 20

Note: W is water that is used in the mixes.

Various figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 indicate T50 time, V-Funnel time, blocking ratio and U-Box height difference.

Fig.1: Tf and Tf5 min (sec.) for all mixes Fig.2: Time required passing (50 cm Dia.) Circle

Fig.3: Tf and Tf5 min (sec.) for all mixes Fig.4: Results of BR for all mixes

It has been concluded that flowability decreases with the use of crushed aggregates and increasing the maximum

size of coarse aggregate with the same dose of superplasticizer and water-powder rat io. A partial replacement of

cement by 10% metakaolin leads to a decrease in flowability and an increase in viscosity.

Siddique (2011) prepared a report on results of various fresh properties of SCC. The various tests like Slump flow,

U-Box, L-Box, V-Funnel and j-ring were performed on five mixes of concrete. Class F Fly ash was used as a

supplementary cementit ious material with 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 35% cement replacement by weight. A

polycarboxylic ether based superplasticizer complying to ASTM C 494 type F was used. Slump flow time (T50 time)

for all mixes was less than 4.5 seconds. All the other properties were acceptable as per EFNARC standard. The

various results were given as in the Table 3 [9].

Table 3: Fresh Properties of SCC mixes [9]

Mix Slump Flow J-Ring V-Funnel L-Box U-Box

Dia.

(mm)

T50cm

(s)

Dia.

(mm)

h2-h1

(mm)

T10s

(s)

T5min

(s)

T400mm

(s)

T600mm

(s) TL (s) (h2/h1)

(h1-h2)

(mm)



SC

C1

673.3 4.5 586.7 2.3 7.5 15 3.5 8.3 11.9 0.89 20

SC

C2

690.0 3.0 580.0 6.7 4.5 5.1 1.4 2.4 3.5 0.95 10

SC

C3

603.3 4.4 540.3 37.0 5.2 7.6 0.5 1.3 2.4 0.85 40

SC

C4

673.3 3.0 626.7 3.0 6.1 9.5 1.2 2.2 4.0 0.95 5

SC

C5

633.3 4.0 556.7 7.0 10.0 18.5 2.8 4.8 6.9 0.92 20

Halit Yazıcı (2008) replaced the cement with Class C Fly ash and silica fume in various proportions. Total powder

content was 600 kg/m3. Nine different concrete mixes were p repared including one control mix. In H series, cement

was replaced as 30%, 40%, 50% and 60% by weight of fly ash. In HS series silica fume and fly ash both

replacements are implemented. Silica fume replacements has been made at const ant ratio (10%) while fly ash was

replaced in the same manner such as 30%, 40%, 50% and 60%. Water/binder ratio was kept constant as

0.28.Apolycarboxylate based superplasticizer confirming the standard of ASTM C 494 Type F was used. It was

observed that slump flow vary between 700 mm to 825 mm. In H series T50 t ime increases with increased content

of fly ash. All concrete mixes confirm the fresh properties suggested by EFNARC except H50 and H60 mixtures.

Various properties of fresh concrete were given as shown in Table 4 [10].

Table 4: Properties of Fresh Concrete [10]

Series FA (% ) SF (% ) Flow (mm) T50 (s) V-box(s) Air Temp.

(C)

C 0 0 710 3.5 20 30

H30 30 0 785 3.5 18 25

H40 40 0 750 4.5 23 27

H50 50 0 800 5 42 24

H60 60 0 780 7.5 35 18

HS30 30 10 825 3.5 12 30

HS40 40 10 765 4 18 29

HS50 50 10 775 3.5 19 26

HS60 60 10 780 4 16 30

4.2 Mechanical & Non-Destructive Properties

Suthar and Shah (2013) examined the strength development of high strength concrete containing Alccofine and fly

ash as cement replacement. Class F fly ash in various proportions 0 %, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35% and Alccofine as 0%,

4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, 12%, and 14% by weight of cement was rep laced. Water b inder rat io was fixed to 0.4 and a new

generation polycarboxylic ether based super plasticizer was introduced. The total binder content was 425 kg/m3.



Compressive strength was determined at 56 days. The ternary system such as cement-fly ash-Alccofine concrete was

found to have more compressive strength at all ages when compared to concrete made with fly ash and Alccofine

alone. The mix composition and results studied were as shown in Table 5, 6 and 7 [12].

Table 5: OPC +Alccofine (W/C=0.4, Water =170 Kg)

Mix No. Materials Strength (MPa)

OPC (kg) ALCCOFINE (kg)

1 100% 425.0 0% 0.0 32.1

2 96% 408.0 4% 17.0 35.41

3 95% 387.6 5% 20.4 37.94

4 94% 364.3 6% 23.3 40.44

5 93% 338.8 7% 25.5 44.81

6 92% 311.7 8% 27.1 41.24

7 91% 283.7 9% 28.1 34.14

8 90% 255.3 10% 28.4 34.09

9 89% 227.2 11% 29.1 33.15

Table 6: OPC+Flyash (W/C=0.4, Water =170 kg)


OPC (kg) FLYASH (kg)

10 100% 425.0 0% 0.0 32.1

11 80% 340.0 20% 85.0 41.5

12 75% 255.0 25% 85.0 45.7

13 70% 178.5 30% 76.5 40.2

14 65% 116.0 35% 62.5 38.6

Table 7: OPC+ Alccofine + Flyash (W/C=0.4, Water =170 kg)


OPC (kg) ALCCOFINE (kg) FLYASH (kg)

15 100% 425.0 0% 0 0% 0.0 32.1

16 70% 297.5 6% 25.5 20% 85.00 41.60

17 65% 276.25 6% 25.5 25% 106.25 42.49

18 78% 331.5 6% 25.5 30% 127.50 40.06

19 76% 323.0 7% 29.75 20% 85.00 43.84

20 73% 310.25 7% 29.75 25% 106.25 50.74

21 71% 301.75 7% 29.75 30% 127.50 42.39

22 70% 297.50 8% 34.00 20% 85.00 37.78

23 65% 276.25 8% 34.00 25% 106.25 40.19

24 78% 331.5 8% 34.00 30% 127.50 36.42

Gritsada and Makul (2013) investigated the properties of SCC comprising Portland cement (OPC), untreated rice

husk ash (RHA) and pulverized fuel ash (FA) as ternary combinations. RHA and FA were used as a replacement of

20% or 40% by weight of cement. Total powder content was 550 kg/m3.

It was observed that ultrasonic pulse

velocity decreased with increase of RHA and FA content. Mix proportions of SCC and results for UPV test were as

shown in Table 8 which is also depicted by the graph in Figure 5 [11].



Table 8: Mix proportions of SCC and results for UPV test

Mix Materials (kg/m3) HRWR

(% ) Cementitious Aggregate

Total

powder

Cement Rice husk

ash

Pulverized

fuel ash

Fine Coarse

Control 550 550 0 0 813 708 2.0

RHA20 550 440 110 0 813 708 2.0

RHA40 550 330 220 0 813 708 2.0

FA20 550 440 0 110 813 708 2.0

FA40 550 330 0 220 813 708 2.0

RHA10FA10 550 440 55 55 813 708 2.0

RHA20FA20 550 330 110 110 813 708 2.0

Fig.5: Relation of different types of concrete with the Ultrasonic Pulse velocity (km/s)

Boukendak dji et al. (2012) studied compressive strength of self-compacting concrete replacing Portland cement

with blast furnace slag. They prepared five mix proportions, of which one is control, and four were prepared by

replacing cement with 10%, 15%, 20% and 25% of b last furnace slag. Po lycarboxylate based superplasticizer and

naphthalene sulphonate based super plasticizers were used. It was observed that out of these polycarboxylate based

superplasticizer concrete mix gave higher compressive strength at all ages. Compressive strength decreases with

increase of slag content at early ages when compared to vibrated concrete but it become less important at later ages

(56 and 90 days). Variation of compressive strength was shown as below in figure 6 [13].



Fig.6: Variation of compressive strength (MPa) with concrete age (days)

Siddique et al. (2012) studied the influence of water/powder rat io on strength properties of self compacting concrete

containing coal fly ash and bottom ash. Fine aggregates were replaced by coal bottom ash while cement was

replaced with fly ash. Twenty concrete mixes were prepared with varying percentage of bottom ash as 0%, 10%,

20% and 30% and fly ash as cement replacement from15% to 35%. Total powder content was 550 kg/m3. Mix

compositions of concrete were summarized as shown below in Table 9and 10 while the Figures 7, 8 and 9

respectively gives the strength variations versus the water/powder rat io with d ifferent bottom ash contents at ag es of

28, 90 and 365 days [14].

Table 9: Mix composition for 0% and 10% bottom ash mixes



Table 10: Mix Composition for 20% and 30% bottom ash mixes

Fig: 7 Fig. 8

Fig: 9

Fig. 7-9: Strength variations versus the water/powder ratio with different bottom ash contents at ages of 28,

90 and 365 days respectively.

They concluded that there was increase in strength on decrease of w/p ratio from 0.439 to 0.414 for 0% bottom ash,

0.5 to 0.47 for 10% bottom ash, 0.58 to 0.51 for 20% bottom ash and 0.620 to 0.546 for 30% bottom ash. We have

found the fly ash dose 25% to 30% and bottom ash up to 20% as an optimum dose.



4.3 Chloride attack and Sulphate attack

Kannan and Ganesan (2014) studied the chloride and chemical resistance of SCC containing rice husk ash (RHA)

and Metakaolin (MK). The durability properties of seventeen various mixes were studied. Specimens were exposed

to 5% hydrochloric acid and 5% sulfuric acid solutions. In acidic environment cement blended with RHA and a

combination of MK and RHA showed improved properties over unblended SCC while SCC blended with

metakaolin showed unsatisfactory performance. For both sulfuric and hydrochloric acid, the minimum weight loss

was obtained in SCC blended with MK, RHA + MK and RHA at rep lacement levels of 5% for MK, 40% for RHA +

MK and 25% for RHA [15].

Siad et al. (2013) studied the effect of sodium sulfate environment on the behavior of SCCs with d ifferent types of

mineral addit ions. The Limestone filler, fly ash and natural pozzolana were the three mineral admixtures which were

investigated and the results were compared with vibrated concrete. Specimens were immersed in 5% Na2SO4

solution for 720 days. The penetration depth was determined using SEM–EDS. It was concluded that low strength

vibrated concrete or SCC mixtures with limestone filler, could not be recommended in a rich sodium sulfate

environment. Also the incorporation of natural pozzolana and fly ash as in SCC seem to be beneficial [16].

Dinak ar et al. (2008) studied the durability properties of SCC with high volume replacements of fly ash. Five mixes

of normally v ibrated concrete and eight mixes of fly ash self compacting concrete of equivalent strength with fly ash

percentage as 0%, 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 85% were prepared. Crust granite with maximum grain size o f 12mm

was used as coarse aggregates and commercially availab le sulphonated naphthalene formaldehyde was used as a

water reducer. To assess the chloride permeability, a test was conducted as per ASTM C 1202. A potential

difference of 60 V DC was maintained across the specimen. The total charge passed for 6 hour was measured which

indicate the degree of resistance to chloride ion penetration. It was observed that high volume of fly ash leads to

increase the amounts of tri-calcium aluminates. Chloride ions react with C3A and thus consequently less free

chloride has left to initiate the corrosion process. As alumina content increases the total charge decreases. Various

figures 10 (a) , (b) and (c) indicate the variat ion of total charge passed versus resistivity, initial current, and alumina

content respectively [17].

Fig. 10(a)



Fig.10 (b) Fig. 10 (c)

Fig.10 (a), (b) and (c): Variation of total charge passed versus resistivity, initial current, and alumina content,

respectively.

5. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

With the study of the various researches carried out on the SCC, the following points were concluded:

Polycarboxylate based super plasticizer gave more workability and acceptable values of all fresh properties

as suggested by EFNARC [6] at all ages as compared to naphthalene sulphonate based super plasticizer.

The optimum content of blast furnace slag was found to be 15% [7].

It was observed that out of these polycarboxylate based superplasticizer concrete mix gave h igher

compressive strength at all ages [7,13].

It was concluded that the flowability decreases with the use of crushed aggregates and increasing the

maximum size of coarse aggregate with the same dose of superplasticizer and water-powder rat io. A part ial

replacement of cement by 10% metakaolin leads to a decrease in flowability and an increase in viscosity [8].

The ternary system such as cement-fly ash-Alccofine concrete was found to have more compressive

strength at all ages when compared to concrete made with fly ash and Alccofine alone [12].

Strength with 7% alccofine was optimized which was 44.81 MPa as compared to other percentages of

alccofine added and also much higher than the control mix (32.1 MPa) [12].

Compressive strength with 25% replacement with fly ash was found to be optimized as compared to

the control mix ( 21.1 MPa) and other percentage of replacement with OPC [12].

Compressive strength decreased with increase of slag content at early ages when compared to vibrated

concrete but it became less important at later ages (56 and 90 days) [13].

With the various experiments conducted, it was concluded that there was increase in strength on decrease

of w/p ratio from 0.439 to 0.414 for 0% bottom ash, 0.5 to 0.47 for 10% bottom ash, 0.58 to 0.51 for 20%

bottom ash and 0.620 to 0.546 for 30% bottom ash. We have found the fly ash dose 25% to 30% and

bottom ash up to 20% as an optimum dose [14].

It was concluded that low strength vibrated concrete or SCC mixtures with limestone filler, could not be

recommended in a rich sodium sulfate environment. Also the incorporation of natural pozzo lana and fly ash

as in SCC seem to be beneficial [16].

It was observed that high volume of fly ash leads to increase the amounts of tri-calcium aluminates. As

alumina content increases the total charge decreases [17].

Also, various advantages and disadvantages were seen which can be summarized as below:

A. Advantages

(a) No vibrations are needed during placement of concrete.

(b) Concreting time is reduced.

(c) Noise level is reduced.

(d) Fewer workers are required.

(e) High quality can be achieved, regardless the skill of the workers.



(f) Good quality concrete finish can be achieved.

(g) Placement of concrete is easier.

B. Disadvantages

(a) There is no established mix design procedure as yet.

(b) Mix must be specially designed based on material availability and required specifications.

6. REFERENCES

[1] Caijun Shi, Zemei Wu, kuixi Lv , et al. A review on mixture design methods for Self-Compacting Concrete.

Construction and Building Materials, 84 (2015): 387– 398.

[2] Ozawa K，Maekawa K, Kunishima M. Development of h igh performance concrete based on the durability

design of concrete structures[C].The Second East-Asia and Pacific Concrete on Structural Engineering and

Construction (EASEC-2), 96 (1989): 445-450.

[3] Zekong Chen, Mao Yang, Zekong Chen. The Research on Process and Application of Self -Compacting Concrete.

Int. Journal o f Engineering Research and Applications, ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 5, Issue 8, (Part - 3) August 2015,

pp.12-18

[4] EFNARC. “Specificat ion and guidelines for self-compacting concrete. European Federation of Producers and

Applicators of Specialist Products for Structures”.

[5] Mehta, PK, Concrete Technology for Sustainable Development - An Overv iew of Essential Principles, Concrete

Technology for Sustainable Development in the Twenty-First Century, Ed . P.K. Mehta, Cement Manufacturers'

Association, New Delhi, India, 1999, 1-22.

[6] EFNARC. Self-Compacting concrete, European project group. The European guidelines fo r self-compacting

concrete: specification, production and use; 2005.

[7] Othmane Boukendakdji, El-Hadj Kadri, Said Kenai, “Effects of granulated blast furnace slag and

superplasticizer type on the fresh properties and compressive strength of self-compacting concrete,” Cem and Con

composites. 34, pp. 583-590, 2012.

[8] O. R. Khaleel, Al-Mishhadani, H. Abdul Razaki, “The Effect of Coarse Aggregate on Fresh and Hardened

Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete,” Procedia Engineering. 14, pp. 805–813, 2011.

[9] Rafat Siddique, “Properties of self-compacting concrete containing class F fly ash,” Materials and Design. 32, pp.

1501–1507, 2011.

[10] Halit Yazıcı, “The effect of silica fume and h igh-volume Class C fly ash on mechanical properties, chloride

penetration and freeze–thaw resistance of self compacting concrete,” Constr and Build Mater. 22, pp. 456–462, 2008.

[11] Gritsada, Makul, “Use of unprocessed Rice husk ash and pulverized fuel ash in the production of self

compacting concrete,” IERI Procedia. 5, pp. 298 – 303, 2013.

[12] Suthar Sunil B, Shah B. K., “Study on Strength Development of High Strength Concrete Containing Alccofine

and Fly-Ash,” Volume : 2, pp. 2250-1991, 2013.

[13] Othmane Boukendakdji, El-Hadj Kadri, Said Kenai, “Effects of granulated blast furnace slag and

superplasticizer type on the fresh properties and compressive strength of self-compacting concrete,” Ceme and Conc

Comp. 34, pp. 583–590, 2012.

[14] Rafat Siddique, Paratibha Aggarwal, Yogesh Aggarwal, “Influence of water/powder rat io on strength properties

of self-compacting concrete containing coal fly ash and bottom ash ,” Constr and Build Mater. 29, pp. 73–81, 2012.

[15] V. Kannan, K. Ganesan, “Chloride and chemical resistance of self compacting concrete containing rice husk

ash and metakaolin,” Constr and Build Mater. 51, pp. 225–234, 2014.

[16] H. Siada, S. Kamali-Bernard, Mesbah, G. Escadeillas, M. Mouli, H. Khelafi, “Characterizat ion of the

degradation of self-compacting concretes in sodium sulfate environment: In fluence of d ifferent mineral admixtures,”

Constr and Build Mater. 47, pp. 1188–1200, 2013.

[17] P. Dinakar, K.G. Babu, Manu Santhanam, “Durab ility properties of high volume fly ash self compacting

concretes,” Cem and Concr Comp. 30, pp. 880–886, 2008.

Date post:	12-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTIES OF...

Documents